UNIT TRUST OF INDIA vs BIJAYLAL RATHOR

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order of the Orissa State Commission at Cuttack dated 28.12.95 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as time barred and upholding the order of the District Forum, Puri, Nayagarh dated 20.6.95 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realisation besides a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-.

THE facts in brief are these : The complainant applied for 1,000 Units of the Unit Trust of India (for short called UTI) and handed over a Bank Draft No. 888952 dated 30.1.91 for Rs. 9,975/- plus Commission Rs. 25/-, in all Rs. 10,000/- to UTI agent Shri R.N. Swain for depositing the same to the UTI office. The complainant did not receive the Units and approached Shri R.N. Swain, the local agent of the UTI who was made the 2nd opposite party in the complaint. He admitted that he had received the draft in question dated 30.1.91 for Rs. 9,975/- for MTUS-90(TT) drawn on Calcutta for the complainant on 30.1.91 and the said draft alongwith the application form had been deposited with the UTI branch office, Bhubaneswar on 6.2.91. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed claiming several reliefs. On being noticed the opposite parties remained absent despite service and were proceeded ex-parte. The District Forum allowed the complaint and granted the reliefs as noticed earlier.

BEING aggrieved of the Order of the District Forum the UTI filed an appeal before the Orissa State Commission but it was delayed by a period of 54 days. The State Commission was not inclined to condone the delay and dismissed the application and consequently the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

WE have heard Shri Dharam Dev, Authorised Representative of the petitioner herein, and have gone through the records as the complainant did not appear. The petitioner has placed on record subsequent events to the disposal of the complaint by the District Forum. â?¢UTI took up the matter with the State Bank of India, Odogaon Branch, for ascertaining the paid/unpaid position of the D.D. No. 888952 dated 30.1.91 for Rs. 9,975/- and came to know vide Banker''s letter dated 26.8.95 that the said draft was lying unpaid as on 15.3.94. Subsequent inquiries were made from the State Bank of India as to whether any duplicate Bank Draft was issued. The State Bank of India in its letter dated 23rd May, 1996 informed the UTI that they had already issued a duplicate draft, (Draft No. 888952 for Rs. 9,975/- dated 30.1.96 (SIC 1991) drawn on State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch favouring UTI) on 7.2.96 to the original purchaser of the draft upon compliance of the Bank''s usual procedure. It is also stated that in case the same has not been deposited with the UTI the matter could be taken up with the party direct. The District Forum thus had no jurisdiction to grant the relief to the complainant of getting back Rs. 10,000/- from first opposite party with interest @ 12% per annum when the complainant himself got the duplicate Bank Draft and never deposited the same with the UTI. Shri Dharam Dev, Authorised Representative of the petitioner, stated that the UTI is willing to issue the Units to the complainant under MIUS-90(TT) Cumulative with effect from the date of the original scheme of the UTI notified in December, 1991. It is, therefore, unnecessary to determine whether the draft alongwith the application was lost by the agent or by the branch office of the UTI or the office issuing the Units. We are inclined to mould the relief granted by the District Forum as hereunder: The complainant shall deposit with the U.T.I, the duplicate draft No. 888952 for Rs. 9,975/-drawn on the State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch favouring the UTI after its revalidation together with a duplicate copy of the application within one month from the date of the receipt of this Order. The UTI shall issue the units of MIUS-90(II) (cumulative) within a period of one month thereafter, but under the original scheme back dated. The effect of the issue of the Units would be that the complainant could get interest cumulative as per the scheme. The relief granted by the District Forum is set aside and substituted as specified above. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout.